4.7 Article

A comparison of performance of several artificial intelligence methods for forecasting monthly discharge time series

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
Volume 374, Issue 3-4, Pages 294-306

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.019

Keywords

Monthly discharge time series forecasting; ARMA; ANN; ANFIS; GP; SVM

Funding

  1. Central Research Grant of Hong Kong Polytechnic University [G-U265]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50679011]
  3. Ministry of Water Resources, PR China [200801015]
  4. Scientific Research Foundation of North China Institute of Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric Power for High-level Talents [200821]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Developing a hydrological forecasting model based on past records is crucial to effective hydropower reservoir management and scheduling. Traditionally, time series analysis and modeling is used for building mathematical models to generate hydrologic records in hydrology and water resources. Artificial intelligence (AI), as a branch of computer science, is capable of analyzing long-series and large-scale hydrological data. In recent years, it is one of front issues to apply AI technology to the hydrological forecasting modeling. In this paper, autoregressive moving-average (ARMA) models, artificial neural networks (ANNs) approaches, adaptive neural-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) techniques, genetic programming (GP) models and support vector machine (SVM) method are examined using the long-term observations of monthly river flow discharges. The four quantitative standard statistical performance evaluation measures, the coefficient of correlation (R), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (E), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), are employed to evaluate the performances of various models developed. Two case study river sites are also provided to illustrate their respective performances. The results indicate that the best performance can be obtained by ANFIS, GP and SVM, in terms of different evaluation criteria during the training and validation phases. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available